In San Jose, 2010 and 2012 were years of impressive promises. Elected officials assured residents that a “yes” vote on pension reform would stabilize the city’s finances and restore decimated city services.

Now, it’s 2014, the year of broken promises. The police force has declined as the crime rate escalates. Key provisions of ballot Measure B have been overturned in court. Even after achieving savings from pension reforms, the new city manager calls for $65 million in higher taxes to open libraries, fill potholes and speed up emergency response times.

Yet, astonishingly, despite this glaring evidence, many candidates and columnists still make the same arguments and claims. San Jose residents should view these repetitive pronouncements with skepticism. Pension reforms are clearly two-edged swords; they can lead to serious losses in public services and neighborhood security that outweigh any budget savings.

Looking forward, pension proposals need to be evaluated according to three criteria: compatibility with the constitution, ability to restore city services and capacity to stabilize city finances.

Today, residents should insist that pension reform proposals comply with the state constitution. If they don’t, much more is at stake than wasting tax dollars on high-priced lawyers.

Creating a viable, legal pension reform plan takes time, and neighborhoods facing dangerously high crime rates cannot afford delays. Unconstitutional provisions have driven hundreds of San Jose police off of the force. More unconstitutional plans mean more years without a fully staffed Police Department.

Restoring city services. They have been badly reduced because the city encountered a fiscal perfect storm — a weak tax base, falling property values, declining tax revenues in the recession and increasing pension costs. In a perfect storm it makes sense to delay additional financial burdens until you reach calmer times.

For pension reform plans, that means spreading costs over a longer period rather than insisting that high costs be paid right now. Surprisingly, columnist Daniel Borenstein has denounced proposals to shift San Jose pension plans to CalPERS in part because they protect the current city budget by moving costs into the future.

Residents should ask themselves: If someone is kicking in your door and threatening your family, which do you care about more — taking a few years longer to pay off pension debt or taking a few minutes less for the police to arrive? At those times, the sight of a patrol car is, to paraphrase the credit card ads, priceless. The “short-term savings” that Borenstein mocks are exactly what may let the cops arrive in time.

Fiscal stability. Independent professional actuaries have shown the city’s pension obligations will increase for several more years, peak and then decline. Lawful measures that the city adopted already prevent unsustainable pension costs. The parts of pension reform which drive skilled and experienced staff to seek better jobs elsewhere aren’t needed to avoid fiscal crisis. They can be fixed at moderate expense.

More than anything else, residents must ask: How long should our neighborhoods be underserved and unsafe because city leaders won’t replace pension reforms that aren’t working with different and better ideas?

In Silicon Valley, we can see how quickly Microsoft altered its failing Windows 8.0 operating system.

Why is City Hall still defending its pension reform fiasco, Measure B?

Bob Brownstein is director of policy and research for Working Partnerships USA and was budget director under former San Jose Mayor Susan Hammer. He wrote this for this newspaper.